“In Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 636, the California Supreme Court concluded that a group of homeowners could not recover damages in negligence from the developer, contractor or subcontractors who built their homes, for existing construction defects that had not yet caused either property damage or personal injury. In reaching this conclusion, the Aas court explained that while "tort law provides a remedy for construction defects that cause property damage or personal injury" (Id. at p. 635), the ‘economic loss rule’ precludes recovery for damages such as ‘the difference between price paid and value received, and deviations from standards of quality that have not resulted in property damage or personal injury.’” (Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1201 citing Aas, supra, at 636).
“In response to the holding in Aas, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 895 et seq. (the Right to Repair Act or the Act).” (Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1201.) “The Act establishes a set of building standards pertaining to new residential construction, and provides homeowners with a cause of action against, among others, builders and individual product manufacturers for violation of the standards.” (Id. citing Secs. 896, 936). “The Act makes clear that upon a showing of violation of an applicable standard, a homeowner may recover economic losses from a builder without having to show that the violation caused property damage or personal injury.” (Id. citing Secs. 896, 942). “In such an instance, the Act abrogates the economic loss rule, thus legislatively superseding Aas.” (Id.)
The "Builder's Right to Repair Law" (Civil Code §895 et. seq.), effective 1/1/2003, establishes procedures and requirements with respect to construction defects involving homes and homeowners. The statutes established a statutory "pre-litigation procedure" that must be followed; but also gave developers the option of devising their own pre-litigation procedures - i.e. to contract for alternative non-adversarial pre-litigation procedures for resolving construction defects claims.
The Right to Repair Act (the “Act”) codifies a lengthy set of standards for asserting property damage claims arising out of the construction of individual dwellings. (Civ. Code §§ 895-945.5.) The Act creates a procedure for asserting construction defect claims and a statutory cause of action which replace common law litigation procedures and common law causes of action with respect to these claims. (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, 251.) Various forms of economic loss are recoverable under the act, as is property damage resulting from construction defects. (Id. at 252; Civ. Code § 944.) “[F]or property damage, the Legislature replaced the common law methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (Id. at 253.)
Civil Code §§910-938 sets out a non-adversarial pre-litigation procedure that a homeowner is required to follow prior to filing a lawsuit to recover on claims of construction defects. (Anders v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 579). The homeowner must give written notice to the builder of any claim that the builder violated Civ. Code §§896 and 897, describing the nature and location of the claimed violations (See also §910). The builder, in turn, must acknowledge receipt of the defect claims and make elections, inspections, offers to repair etc. within the statutory time periods. It appears that the Legislature intended that this type of disclosure and response would also apply to situations where the builder and the homeowner agreed to contractual procedures. (See Standard Pacific Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 828.) As a result, where the ADR provisions are contractually based, each plaintiff homeowner needs to establish that he/she provided the builder with notice of the defects claimed to exist.
Civil Code section 912 identifies pre-litigation steps builders have a right take to address the problems claimed by plaintiffs and avoid litigation. To exercise this right, however, the builder must strictly comply with the provisions of the statute. Section 912, subdivision (i) states that “Any builder who fails to comply with any of these requirements within the time specified is not entitled to the protection of this chapter, and the homeowner is released from the requirements of this chapter and may proceed with the filing of an action, in which case the remaining chapters of this part shall continue to apply to the action.” (Civ. Code, Sec. 912.)
Section 915 provides:
“If a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of the notice of a claim within the time specified, elects not to go through the process set forth in this chapter, or fails to request an inspection within the time specified, or at the conclusion or cessation of an alternative non-adversarial proceeding, this chapter does not apply and the homeowner is released from the requirements of this chapter and may proceed with the filing of an action. However, the standards set forth in the other chapters of this title shall continue to apply to the action.”
(Civ. Code, Sec. 915.)
(b) This section shall not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee upon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Part 4, of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. This subdivision shall not apply to any claim presented to a public entity prior to January 1, 1971. (Code Civ.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Government Code section 910 lists the information that must be included in a notice of claim. Specifically, section 910 provides that a claim shall show all of the following: (a) The name and post office address of the claimant. (b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. (c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fresno County, CA
¿¿Section 910 lists the information that must be included in a notice of claim, including the¿“date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted[,]” provide a “[a] general description of the ... injury,¿damage¿or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim[,]” and state the amount of the claim if it is less than $10,000, or, if the claim exceeds $10,000, the dollar amount cannot be stated but the claim must indicate
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs have not shown that they complied with the requirements of the Right to Repair Act. They have not established that they served the written notice required by Civil Code §910(a). The April 2018 meeting did not serve as the required SB 800 inspection as to Horizon Underpinning, LLC or John Martindale because they were never put on notice of the relevant issues as required by Civil Code §910(a).
Orange County, CA
Section 945.4 provides: "Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . ."
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Government Code section 946.6(b) requires that the petition to the court must show each of the following: (1) that the late claim application made to the board was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to present the claim within six months of the accrual of the cause of action; and (3) the contents of the claim as required by Government Code section 910. The petition must be filed within six months after the application to present a late claim to the board was denied or deemed to be denied.
Los Angeles County, CA
In opposition to this argument, Plaintiff contends that Government Code section 910 only requires “a general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim,” and that, as such, her pre-suit notice was sufficient. The court agrees with Plaintiff.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
The petition for relief in state court must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. (Gov’t C. § 946.6(b).)
San Joaquin County, CA
to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for 17 such defects; 18 (4) The claim for spotted IGUs is not recoverable under Plaintiff’s cause of action for 19 breach of implied warranty as The Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for 20 such defects; and 21 (5) The claim for spotted IGUs is not recoverable under Plaintiff’s cause of action for 22 breach of the declaration of covenants, codes, and restrictions as The Right to 23 Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for such defects. 24 Webcor’s motion is directed
Santa Clara County, CA
Plaintiff sued for negligence, nuisance, nondisclosure and statutory relief under the Right to Repair Act. Defendants contend that plaintiff’s “ordinary” causes of action are preempted and subsumed with the statutory Right to Repair Act. Plaintiff says that negligence is an alternative pleading since no court has yet confirmed whether a manufactured home falls within the definitions applicable to the statute and that other claims are outside the scope of the statute.
Orange County, CA
Section 910 ... until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board....” Section 910, in turn, requires that the claim state the “date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted” and provide “[a] general description of the ... injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.” (Stockett v.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 646 [superseded by statute through the enactment of the Right to Repair Act, as explained in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1203; Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9, 19.) Plaintiffs can recover the cost of replacement of the defective products in tort but only if Plaintiffs also plead and prove that they also sustained appreciable and nonspeculative injury to property other than the defective products. (See e.g. KB Home v.
Contra Costa County, CA
This government claim allegedly filed by Cain on Bernardo’s behalf does not comply with Government Code section 910 because the government claim expressly identifies Cain as the claimant and Bernardo as merely a witness to the damage or injury. The substantial compliance doctrine cannot salvage Bernardo’s wrongful death claim.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).
Los Angeles County, CA
The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs requested that AP, RG and Masoumi repair the items on the punch list and the numerous construction defects, and were notified of defects pursuant to the Right to Repair Act. (See FAC, ¶¶ 11-13.)
Santa Clara County, CA
The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).
Los Angeles County, CA
The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).
Los Angeles County, CA
The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. §946.6(b).
Los Angeles County, CA
. … “(b) The petition shall show each of the following: “(1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. “(2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. “(3) The information required by Section 910[2]. “The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
(3) The information required by Section 910. The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to Identify Bush and Inglehart in the Claims Presented to the City Section 910 sets forth the essential contents of the claim, which include the name of the public employee(s) who caused the injury, damage, or loss, if known. (§ 910(e).) The purpose of these [claims] statutes is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.’
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Government Code section 910 provides that a claim shall be presented by a claimant or “by a person acting on his behalf” and section 910.2 provides that the claim shall be signed by claimant or “by some person on his behalf.” It is clear that Esse L. Lacy presented the claim to respondent on his own behalf and on the behalf of his wife and children. (Lacy, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at p. 155.)
San Luis Obispo County, CA
(3) The information required by Section 910. The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 945.4 states: “Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
